Kerry and WMD. So who really has used WMD in the last 100 years?

Yet again, some yank using lies as an excuse to 'kick some ass pronto'.

Woulden't anyone class 'Agent Orange' as a chemical weapon? Or atleast it's use during Vietnam as a Chemical Weapon seeing as it was used to fight the guerilla forces, and severely f***ed up a whole bunch of people, including the civillian population?

Hopefully, Congress wont have the same 'YEEHAW GAD DAMN IT!' attitude when hearing that pack of bullshit.

Agent Orange was used as a defoliant to reduce tree cover and reduce farm yields-it was an 'environmental' control, not an anti-personnel weapon.
Nowadays, due to the Israelis liberal use in Gaza, there's a move to make White Phosphorous a CW agent, where its normally accepted to be a conventional incendiary/smoke round.

What also distorts this issue is the US tendency to class every ten bob terrorist as a 'WMD'. Just because a bomb causes lots of casualties it's lumped in as a WMD, even if it is entirely conventional in nature. The term should be confined to CBRN weapon systems.


Don’t forget this. In 1943 the Germans bombed Bari harbour (Italy) hitting a number of allied supply ships. One of which was full of mustard gas shells. These shells were there to be used against the Germans, only in the event that the Germans used CW first.

I belive that the Germans did not use CW, as Hitler had been gassed in WW1 and had banded them from doing so. Not counting the death camps, but they considered that more a case of pest control.

Air raid on Bari - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

SS John Harvey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


So Saddam's CW and Biological (???) were supplied by European firms?
So Syria has agreed to a Russian plan to surrender its CW. If this happens it kind of cuts the ground from under the US while the conventional figting continues unabated.


I seem to recall "Our Greatest PM" was in favour of dropping the stuff in the 1920s
WTH is Putin bleating about anyways? I am glad he is moon lighting as an NYT contributor...must be desperate for the money.

A Plea for Caution From Russia
September 11, 2013
MOSCOW — RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.

Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again.

The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.

No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.

The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.

Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.

Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all.

From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.

No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored.

It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.”

But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.

No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.

The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.

We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.

A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.

I welcome the president’s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations.

If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.

My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.

Vladimir V. Putin is the president of Russia.
Personally I am quite surprised that Kerry Katona has taken such an interest in the Syrian Question - whats in it for her ?
One could easily argue that the entire bombing campaign from all sides during WW2 was a Weapon of Mass Destruction.

The same could be said about the carpet bombing of Vietnam.

Taken to the extreme - - Airpower alone could be considered a WMD as evidenced during GW1.
Interesting the Japanese wide usage that really is unknown in the wider world. Couldn't be because they are now an ally, could it? Or was it just because it was in an obscure (to us) conflict and horrible things happened there as a matter of course. Had they used it against us or the Yanks then perhaps there would have been an outcry and it would have been shouted out. Seems that when a peasant people have no voice then it doesn't matter much what happens to them.

Interesting read if you have a couple of minutes.

It would appear that the Yanks covered up unit 731's activities in order to gain their knowledge!
Much like the Soviets and Yanks did with the Nazi rocket technicians.

"When the war ended, the Soviet Army overran Manchuria and brought back 500,000 Japanese prisoners of war, including some who had worked at Unit 731. While Soviet officials deliberated on what to do with them, U.S. Gen. Douglas MacArthur secretly granted immunity to the physicians of Unit 731 in exchange for providing America with their research on biological weapons. Presented with evidence that downed U.S. airmen had been victims of grotesque experiments, MacArthur suppressed the information."

It seems our politicians have always been good at ignoring what they want, when they want.
It only begs the question as to why the Yanks are hell bent on attacking Syria now?

Latest Threads